Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles

Debate between Grahame Morris and Guy Opperman

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Although I welcome the Government’s assurances on that specific issue, I am concerned about the Government’s amendment on contracting out. A customer might telephone a private hire company for a particular reason. They may have a disability or a preference, or they may get a better price. Unfortunately, some taxi operators discriminate against disabled people by charging them a higher premium. There are considerable and worrying implications for disabled people, even if we accept some of the Minister’s assurances.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He will surely accept that the Deregulation Bill is going through the Commons and the House has yet to complete its consideration of the new clauses. Surely, he cannot possibly object to one of the new clauses, so this is my simple question: why should we not allow a private hire vehicle to be driven, when off duty, as a normal vehicle, thereby freeing a family from the need to run a second car, particularly given the cost of living crisis that he so frequently asserts?

[Grahame M. Morris]

There is a reason, which I will address in more detail. On the immediate question, there is ample evidence, particularly in the City of London, of a problem with unlicensed taxis and rogue minicab operators. If people drove around in private hire vehicles, it would be much easier for them to pick people up and engage in illegal activity. I have seen figures showing that in London last year there were 260 assaults and 54 rapes, so we should be cognisant of that.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. The fundamental point that I was trying to make before that series of interventions is that the Public Bill Committee did not have the opportunity to consider properly representations from the trade in the time scale allowed. My understanding is that these new clauses had not been tabled when the evidence sessions were held. It is important that those representations are properly considered.

A number of important stakeholders—including the Local Government Association, which has contacted me—have said that the informal consultation on the measures has been completely inadequate. What is the point of the Law Commission going to the expense of compiling a detailed report if we are not going to wait for its outcome? Undoubtedly, a considerable amount of time, money and effort have been spent on it, and Members should have an answer.

[Guy Opperman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Grahame M. Morris]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will make a little bit more progress. I am sure that he can make a fuller contribution in a moment. [Interruption.] Well, I did give way to him once already.

I will quote from some of the representations that I have received, given that the Public Bill Committee was not able to take evidence on the issue. My union, Unite, which represents thousands of taxi drivers up and down the country, said:

“These amendments are a last minute attempt by the Department for Transport to get something on the statute books without proper or full consultation with stakeholders having taken place and without waiting for the Law Commission’s Draft Bill.”

I think that that is a fairly accurate statement of fact.

To go into the specifics, the first of the Government’s three proposed new clauses would allow drivers, as the hon. Member for Hexham said, who do not hold a private hire vehicle licence to drive such a vehicle when it is not being used as a private hire vehicle. I read the text of the Minister’s response in Committee in Hansard, and in mitigation he indicated that London was a precedent for the proposed changes. We have to recognise that London has one of the largest taxi markets in the world and is a truly global city. We have heard arguments about exemptions for investment in transport. A figure that I often quote is that the investment in transport infrastructure in my region is £5 a head, and in London it is £2,900 a head. If we are using precedent as an example, we should have a 500-fold increase in investment in transport infrastructure in the north-east. It is not always appropriate to use precedent. Compared with the rest of the country, the situation in London is rather different in terms of regulation, enforcement and Transport for London.

Under the new clause, family members will be free to use a private hire vehicle on a personal basis, so long as they do not use it for private hire. The Minister said that it would be totally straightforward to identify abuses, but it would be hugely problematic. I was trying to imagine how someone could be stopped on suspicion of committing that abuse, and that should have full and proper consideration. It was one of the reasons for setting up the Law Commission consultation.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The hon. Gentleman makes an eminently sensible point, which is the one that I am trying to make. We should not approach the matter in a haphazard, piecemeal fashion, particularly when we have set in train a major review and are consulting with all stakeholders, not all of whom would agree with me. That seems sensible, and I cannot for the life of me see the logic in ploughing ahead with these changes in such a piecemeal fashion.

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman talks about stakeholders, but does he accept—on BBC radio this morning, he debated with one of the stakeholders, who made this case robustly—that the change will bring a considerable number of new jobs to the north-east? Lord knows we need them, and the hon. Gentleman often makes the case for them.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I did have a debate this morning with a representative of Blueline Taxis from Newcastle. One of my hon. Friends wants to talk about some of the problems that have arisen, so I will leave them to respond on that.

There is a consequence to what we are doing. I hold taxi drivers in the highest regard. I socialise with a number of taxi drivers. I count them among my best friends, and I want to keep them. I do not want their status and prestige to be undermined by unlicensed taxis and the potential consequences of rushing this ill-thought-through legislation through Parliament.

North-East Independent Economic Review

Debate between Grahame Morris and Guy Opperman

Thursday 5th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman need not take my word for it; he can listen to the author of the report and the business men and business women who believe in the north-east being able to cope with those difficulties and strongly make the case that there is optimism to be found there.

The next step as regards the combined north-east local authority is to pick a leader. I would certainly support having a mayor.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about a champion—a mayor—to lead the LA7, or strategic authority—[Interruption.] I am not canvassing for the job; I am going to suggest a job for the hon. Gentleman, actually. On that basis, does he support the idea eloquently expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) that we should have a Minister for the north-east as an advocate who did precisely that job at the heart of Government? Perhaps that would be a good job for the hon. Gentleman.

[Guy Opperman]

I am delighted by the recommendation for promotion, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is way above my pay grade and way beyond my decision-making powers.

NHS (Private Sector)

Debate between Grahame Morris and Guy Opperman

Monday 16th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

To respond to some of the misrepresentations of the Opposition, I worked for the NHS for some 12 years and hold it in the very highest regard. I am here to defend the NHS against privatisation, and I make no apology for doing so to Government Members or anyone else for that matter.

It is fitting to pay tribute to all those who work in the NHS and who make it such a tremendous institution. I also pay tribute to members of the British Medical Association consultants committee who took part in Bevan’s run to mark their opposition to the dreadful Health and Social Care Bill as part of the “Drop the Bill” campaign. They ran 160 miles in six days from Nye Bevan’s statue in Cardiff to deliver a postcard to the Department of Health in Whitehall to call on the Secretary of State to drop the Bill.

In the limited time available, I should like to address the point in the motion about the cap and to address Government Members’ misrepresentations. The private patient income cap, which was set up under the previous Labour Government in the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, which established NHS foundation trusts, was a protection against the need for profit overtaking the needs of NHS patients. With all hospital trusts set to become foundation trusts by 2014, a meaningful cap on the amount of resources that can be directed to the care and treatment of private patients becomes even more important.

The passage of the Health and Social Care Bill—it is in the Lords at the moment—can only be described as a shambles. It is an incredibly unpopular measure. There could have been agreement on, for example, clinical involvement in commissioning, but that could be achieved without this incredible disruption to the service. I certainly believe that it is harmful to the future existence of the NHS. There is no mandate or basis for it in the Conservative or Lib Dem manifestos or in the coalition agreement. This NHS privatisation plan might be better described as an NHS privatisation paving Bill—

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Grahame M. Morris]

With all due respect, I have very limited time and I am not going to take any interventions.

Any utterance about the nature of the NHS reforms planned by the Secretary of State during the general election campaign was heavily disguised. He weaved a tangled web in private health care during his seven years as Opposition spokesman on health. A few moments ago, he mentioned Labour’s involvement with the trade unions, but it is the involvement of the Conservatives with private health care interests that should be the subject of scrutiny.

NHS professionals, staff, the public and experts alike have all rejected the ethos of profits over patients, but the Secretary of State will not be deterred. He has defended his move by claiming that foundation trusts have a core legal duty to care for NHS patients. However, at the same time he is telling these trusts that they must make a profit to survive, and that if they run a deficit, they risk failure. That could mean being taken over by another trust or, as we have seen in the case of Hinchingbrooke hospital in Huntingdon, being taken over by a private sector provider.

We have not seen the Bill’s risk assessment, but as a member of the Public Bill Committee, I saw the impact assessment, and in point B95 it confirms that rather than improving services at hospital level through performance management, poor providers

“may need to contract or exit completely.”

That has created the ultimate Catch-22 for foundation trusts, with a conflict between patients and profits. A further Government proposal to scrap the provision in the 2006 Act which allows failing foundation trusts to return to NHS control puts further pressure on the need for trusts to pursue profits and has been opposed by the NHS chief executive, Sir David Nicholson.

I urge hon. Members to vote for the motion to ensure that patient care is placed before private profit and to send a clear and strong message to the Government that they must think again about their plans to ratchet up privatisation in our beloved NHS. The Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) has often quoted Nye Bevan, but to quote Robin Cook,

“If he believes that the spirit of Nye Bevan supports his changes to the NHS then there is a wheel missing from his ouija board.”

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Grahame Morris and Guy Opperman

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

The hon. Gentleman talks about this being a dereliction of duty, but this is a scheme costing billions of pounds for barely 12,000 people that was trotted out in circumstances where there was no prospect of it being taken up.

[Grahame M. Morris]

The scheme is in its infancy and, essentially, it was marketed in only two areas—Manchester and London. It would have been rolled out further and then, presumably, have had much greater appeal. There is an interesting contradiction: the big corporate interests who were involved in this scheme were paid compensation, but no recompense is to be made to ordinary citizens who paid £30 for a card.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) mentioned the £30 figure. It may seem a trifling sum to some Members, but for a great many people, including many of my constituents, it is a considerable amount of money. There has been some discussion of why individuals on low incomes might have chosen to spend such a sum on an ID card, and whether many did so. We must consider the fact that alternative forms of identification are more expensive—for example, a provisional driving licence is an accepted form of ID commonly used by younger people as proof of age and it costs £50. There is a cost reason that led some people voluntarily to choose to buy an ID card, therefore. People on lower incomes who needed to prove their age would naturally be inclined to opt for an ID card, but whether the person who bought the card was on a low income or a millionaire is, in fact, irrelevant because the behaviour of this Government in not addressing the unfairness and injustice contained in the Bill is deplorable.

I cannot see why the cards that have already been issued cannot in some way remain valid until their expiry date. The parties in the coalition Government have only a handful of policies on which they truly agree and I accept that not continuing with the ID card is among them, but not enough care has been given to reimbursing cardholders or to making some attempt to maintain already issued cards, perhaps with some reduced functionality. There remains a database for passports, and this card could perhaps, at least in some way, remain an authenticated identification document. Did the Minister seek any advice on possible functions for the already issued cards, or was he content just to allow them to fall? There seems to me to be no reason why the cards cannot remain valid until the expiry date.

The Government are abandoning ID cards without any concern for the expenditure that has already been incurred by the taxpayer or any consideration for current ID cardholders, and with little thought for the future of British passport security and the use of biometric data. The Minister has had every opportunity to address the issues Opposition Members raised in Committee, and it is a shame that he was unable to work with us, at least to try to improve some aspects of the Bill.